Talk:Hollingbury

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Brighton (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles

Assessment request[edit]

In response to the assessment request by Hzv5wk: Although Hollingbury is not included within the Sussex project (Brighton has its own project), I will have a look at your article. I have already upgraded it to a Start, and I will be back when I get a chance to study the article in detail.

If you have not yet read WP:UKTOWNS, these are guidelines for producing a comprehensive UK settlement article. I recommend having a look through these.

In the meantime, I have generated an automated peer review. This gives some guidance towards possible Manual of Style changes required. +++ MortimerCat (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made some changes in line with the automated review. I'm not sure whether Hollingbury qualifies as a settlement but I will take a look at the guidelines you suggested. Hzv5wk (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?] Done
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?] Done
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?] Done
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Done
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?] Done
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, MortimerCat (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made Hzv5wk (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive - I just run the automated peer review again and it now only mentions the infobox MortimerCat (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, this is my first real article so appeciate all suggestions. Looks like Kierant has sorted the infobox Hzv5wk (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hollingbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]